john kerry is actually batman. John edwards is robin. Surely they'll stop the terrorists

im a lumberjack and thats ok

who's the commissioner?

ted kennedy

oh mannnnn, they have my vote. NO one can beat batman unless your name is "Bane" (terrorists)

Good post, KTOG.

On the national level, it makes sense. But what you are leaving out of the equation is the fact that the world economy is literally dependant upon national debt. If all national debt were wiped clean, the world economy would collapse on itself.

What you have to keep in mind is that yes, we have the largest national debt in the world. But we have a juggernaut for a GDP and are owed more than three times our debt, which is obviously more than any other nation. So our GDP-to-Debt Ratio is much, much smaller than a lot of other nations.

Because of the current state of the world economy (grossly unbalanced trade agreements [i.e., our $100 billion trade defecit with China due to our removing almost all restrictions while they allow almost none of our product], bankrupted countries [i.e., practically every Eastern Bloc nation]) it is nearly impossible to run a country without having a debt.

As it stands, the United States of America is literally the deep-pocketed parent keeping several countries afloat. Be it by monetary aid, funding their military, our own military operating as a peacekeeping force, etc. We are also - by a huge margin - the largest benefactor of the UN and contribute - by an equally large margin - the most soldiers to its cause. Factor in military operations, social policies, etc and we are easily spending more than we earn because other nations aren't paying off their debt to us. It gets much more complicated, and I don't care to waste it on ears that aren't going to understand the more advanced theoretical models behind national debt as it relates to world economics.

The only way for us to engage in a fiscal strategy that would eliminate debt - without destabilizing the economy, Mr. Clinton, thank you very little - would be to return to a state of isolationism, wherein we withdraw all troops from all regions of the world, withdraw all support - both personnel and funding - from the UN, and cease all aid programs to other nations. In less than a decade, we would have entirely eliminated the national debt and accumulated more real wealth than has been seen since the Holy Roman Empire. Unfortunately, this would send a dozen or so third world countries into civil war without our troop support, halt more than half of the scientific research being done to find cures for terminal diseases and afflictions, strip the UN of a huge portion of its budget, not to mention taking its headquarters and turning its peacekeeping force into a group about as effective as a bike cop in Compton, not to mention destabilize the world economy and create a situation where the United States literally rules the world.

...nor necessary.

Would you buy a new trumpet knowing well that you will be in finacial ruin for then next 4 years? NEIN!

I agree with you 100% Noctis.

As harmful as this might sound to the average person. We don't need surpluses, they are just as harmful as debt. There is no happy medium, its impossible with things such as crime, underground markets, drugs, and any other money that is exchanged illegally. Things like fraud and drug trade are a reason why are taxes are as high as they are. If all illegal transactions all of the sudden became legal then there would be lower taxes. However this would never happen because we don't live in a perfect world. Lets call this the KTOG Theory (the taxation of everything), much like marxism/communism if everyone paid their part than their would be less poverty and corruption (HAIL MOTHER RUSSIA hellfire: ). Since there is tax evasion, we cannot fully equalize our budget.

Surpluses should just be burnt. With this extra cash flow we could pay for NASA, or a global defense shield, or some other government funded project. Yes, they are keeping the economy cruising by creating jobs, but creating jobs never help anyone but a few individuals. The rest of america suffers by having extra cash flow, causing inflation.

So i guess in theory a Conservative can keep the economy stable. However, national econmic stability is impossible.

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":33d55][quote="TGB!":33d55]
Buttocks you wanna let us foolish Amerikkaners know what civil liberties we've given up?[/quote:33d55]

How about freedom of speech for starters and freedom to protest whereever you wish. Heres some pic of the "Free Speech Zone" at the Democratic National Convention last week. If this is what freedom of speech has come to, you can fucking keep it! oOo:

[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040721/480/bx11407212244:33d55]Linkage 1[/url:33d55]

[url=http://www.vulnwatch.org/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/:33d55]Linkage 2[/url:33d55]

[url=http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/index.html:33d55]Linkage 3[/url:33d55][/quote:33d55]

From "Linkage #1":

[quote:33d55]A new federal lawsuit has been filed against the city over the fenced-in protest area that has been called a 'demonstration zone,' and a 'free speech zone.[/quote:33d55]

Why would the Government sue the city? Not to make them fence in the "Free speech Zone". It's already there, the federal government is suing the City of Boston for PUTTING the Fences up, correct? Really sounds like the feds are trying to Stop free speech, huh?

Fundraising in band accounts > money from my own pocket


biggrin:

[quote="Pick Axe":f77a0][quote="Mr.Buttocks":f77a0][quote="TGB!":f77a0]
Buttocks you wanna let us foolish Amerikkaners know what civil liberties we've given up?[/quote:f77a0]

How about freedom of speech for starters and freedom to protest whereever you wish. Heres some pic of the "Free Speech Zone" at the Democratic National Convention last week. If this is what freedom of speech has come to, you can fucking keep it! oOo:

[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040721/480/bx11407212244:f77a0]Linkage 1[/url:f77a0]

[url=http://www.vulnwatch.org/misc/pics/free-speech-pen/:f77a0]Linkage 2[/url:f77a0]

[url=http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/index.html:f77a0]Linkage 3[/url:f77a0][/quote:f77a0]

From "Linkage #1":

[quote:f77a0]A new federal lawsuit has been filed against the city over the fenced-in protest area that has been called a 'demonstration zone,' and a 'free speech zone.[/quote:f77a0]

Why would the Government sue the city? Not to make them fence in the "Free speech Zone". It's already there, the federal government is suing the City of Boston for PUTTING the Fences up, correct? Really sounds like the feds are trying to Stop free speech, huh?[/quote:f77a0]

The words "federal lawsuit" only mean that someone filed suit in the federal court circuit, not that the federal government is the one filing the suit.

Some cunt should post all this stuff ^^^ to al qaeda...that'd stop 'em in their tracks! cuss: !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3530358.stm

oOo:

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":b2c7a]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3530358.stm

oOo:[/quote:b2c7a]

Yes, but the September 11th attacks had info gathered from 9 years ago. GG trying to america look bad.

[quote=KTOG]Yes, but the September 11th attacks had info gathered from 9 years ago. GG trying to america look bad.[/quote:9ca13]

OOGABOOGA!!!! cuss: